What massive corruption!

What massive corruption! | 37 INDICTMENTS, 7 CONVICTIONS, 5 PRISON SENTENCES WHAT SAY WE BRING THIS GUY BACK? OH WHOOPS SORRY WRONG IMAGE THAT WAS THIS ONE AND IF THE  | image tagged in memes,hillary clinton,donald trump,robert mueller,trump impeachment,senate | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Add Meme
Post Comment
Best first
68 Comments
reply
9 ups, 2m,
1 reply
Mueller didn't find jack shit on Trump. He looked like a bumbling fool in his House testimony. The dipshit didn't know who crowdstrike was, who Fusion GPS was, or who Christopher Steele was!

His testimony was so embarrassing, and the results of his "investigation" were so underwhelming - the media NEVER mentions his name! He ensured that he'll never be called on to do anything again.
reply
4 ups, 2m,
3 replies
If Mueller was a joke for getting 37 indictments, 7 convictions, and 5 prison sentences -- then what does that make the Republicans for failing to get HRC and Biden on anything at all?

I've been told HRC and Biden are massively corrupt and both guilty as sin, surely it can't be that hard!
reply
7 ups, 2m,
1 reply
He managed to obtain indictments against people who were not the target of his investigation. HRC and Biden will get their day.
reply
3 ups, 2m,
1 reply
Donald Trump | "HILLARY FOR PRISON 2016?" "LOCK HER UP?" STILL WAITING... | image tagged in donald trump | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 2m,
2 replies
After the 2020 election, in the famous words of the Magic Negro...he'll "have more flexibility."
reply
0 ups, 2m
made w/ Imgflip meme maker
No one wants to remember this . Hypocrites !
reply
0 ups, 2m,
2 replies
“Magic Negro”? God you guys get more unhinged by the day, it’d be funny if this weren’t

Sure — If Trump somehow wins a second term after all this shit, sure, we may as well give him a crown & scepter and let him place phone calls all around the world prosecuting anyone he wants to on the basis of sheer rumors alone

At that point it’ll be just what the American people have voted for. Trump’s not a “dark horse” this time like he was in ‘16, now American voters can see exactly what he is.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2m
He's somebody that grew the economy and GDP well past what the Magic Negro said was possible. Manufacturing jobs coming back where The Kenyan said they were gone forever. ISIS destroyed, no more beheading videos like we had under the Muslim. NATO allies paying more, China brought to the trade agreement by tariffs, and a USMCA trade agreement to replace NAFTA. All while being harassed constantly by idiots like Jim Acosta, Mika and Bevis and the rest of the cable TV clowns. Weathered a constant witch hunt that make McCarthyism look tame by comparison.

In 2016, blacks gave Trump 8% of their votes. Now that they see what possible off the liberal plantation, and how the Dems want to give all the benefits to illegals, they are going to double that or better in 2020.

Prediction... In 2021, Trump goes after George Soros and ANTIFA. If Hungary and Macedonia can get rid of that anti-Christ, we sure can, too.
reply
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
Instead of wanting to put Hillary in jail these guys should be kissing the ground she walks on.

She was the only one on the left vile enough to get Trump elected.
reply
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
I don’t like HRC either, at all, and didn’t vote for her, but even I know 90% of the stuff said about her is invented nonsense

That makes me probably one of the biggest defenders of her on this entire site lmao
reply
1 up, 2m
Yup, most of it is BS. She is super divisive though. She didn't work hard enough to win either.
reply
5 ups, 2m,
1 reply
The FISA Warrants were fraudulently acquired , everyone of his victims is going to walk and sue . The whole scam is going to cost the U.S. Billions !
reply
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
“Billions” lol even the most expensive white-shoe law firm in the country is not gonna run legal bills that high.

And the taxpayer is not paying for the defense of these people anyway. The Defendants in this case are plenty rich enough to afford their own legal representation.
reply
0 ups, 2m
You are too dumb to argue with , the Taxpayers pay for everything .
reply
1 up, 2m
What he's actually saying is that the Republican party is full of incompetent people.
reply
4 ups, 2m
This would be funny if you weren't serious. DIMS think that this was a victory for them???? Reminds me of the Dark Knight in the Monty Python movie!! LOL!!! The Mighty Mueller has strck out. The goal of the Dims from day one was to get PRESIDENT TRUMP(TRIGGER ALERT) and they are still trying to get PRESIDENT TRUMP. You are living in an alternative news bubble. Take your head out of it and look at some alternative source. Mueller swung at him for 2 years and didn't come up with Jack Schitt on him. What's this, like strike 20?? LOL!!! So myopic.
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 2m,
1 reply
Put the crack pipe down, you've had enough. You'll need it by the end of the week though, when the Senate acquits Trump.
reply
4 ups, 2m,
2 replies
lol... we'll see how exactly the GOP Senate engineers this acquittal

On Article I, they have to keep out the evidence and testimony, but without making the process look too disgusting or else risk losing the moderate voters they are going to need come November

And I have no clue how they're going to get rid of Article II, because the massive executive privilege claims haven't been substantiated at all

And Trump has the power to just pardon all of his advisors and associates, but what is he going to do with himself? Resign 5 minutes before leaving office and hope Pence pardons him?

But anyway, we'll see, with this president you don't have to wait too long for him to stick his nose in a new scandal
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 2m,
2 replies
You think you're a Constitutional attorney? You think Trump ever was in trouble with a half-baked pile of imaginary charges from a House kangaroo court? Your ignorance of the law, 700 years of legal precedent and due process is astounding. Mind blowing stupidity on your part.
reply
3 ups, 2m,
1 reply
He does. 30 years old, probably hasn't practiced for 5 years yet, but he's an expert in everything.
reply
2 ups, 2m,
1 reply
How long have you been practicing?

I’m still waiting to hear from you how exactly executive privilege can be invoked to thwart congressional oversight wholesale
reply
2 ups, 2m,
1 reply
Just because you're a lawyer, doesn't make you an expert. You should have learned that in law school.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2m,
1 reply
Timber, I don't think this numb nuts is a lawyer. Or much of anything else, for that matter.
A liar and a fool incapable of critical thought, that's it.
reply
0 ups, 2m,
2 replies
Lol dude even Timber is intelligent enough to realize that I am what I say I am

And while Timber’s points are usually wrong, they’re at least not basic one-dimensional right-wing propaganda copy-pasted from whatever Sean Hannity said last night, which is pretty much the wheelhouse your comments fall in

Since this is your triumphant return to ImgFlip, or whatever, I look forward to being subjected to your verbal abuse in many memes to come
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
The chances of you being an attorney is about as great as me being a left handed Chinese banjo player. And if by some tragic circumstances, (a cosmic joke if you will) and you actually passed the bar in a freak accident, you should be disbarred immediately.
I'm betting you are four alarm pants on fire LIAR.
You see, a real attorney isn't on imgflip morning, noon and night like you are, dick breath.
reply
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
Are you also getting talking points from RightiesAndLefties because he challenged me on this earlier today too.

A typical day on ImgFlip:
—2 politics stream memes
—uncaptioned reposts of some chicks
—Easy refutations of as much right-wing nonsense as I care to do

I don’t know why anyone thinks this takes long
[deleted]
0 ups, 2m
Getting talking points? LOLz
No, you just reek of bullshit. Phony lying idiots like you are NOT that hard to detect.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
Still waiting for you to name one specific crime that Trump committed, by the way. Just one.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
"No crimes have been alleged in the Articles Of Impeachment."
-- Ken Starr, actual attorney of some significance (1/27/2020)
0 ups, 2m
LOL all of Ken Starr’s 11 recommendations for the impeachment of Bill Clinton were “process crimes” exactly of the type described in the Trump Articles of Impeachment, Art. II, “Obstruction of Congress”

To say nothing of the abuse of power described in Art. I

And why hasn’t Trump “perjured” himself yet like Clinton did? Because Trump hasn’t testified, and he never will, and y’all are all okay with that.

Ken Starr is being a total shill here
reply
4 ups, 2m,
2 replies
Lol you sound very educated on this and not at all like a blowhard who has no clue
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 2m,
2 replies
Please name the SPECIFIC section of the US Criminal Code that Trump supposedly violated according to the impeachment documents. Name the SPECIFIC crime. Or STFU, you idiot.
(Clinton violated 18 USC section 1621 Perjury.)
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2m,
1 reply
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 2m,
2 replies
How nice of you to weigh in with an utterly pointless query, which is what we can expect from some foaming at the mouth snowflake.
The concise answer to your pointless question is: None.
Because that repulsive cow hasn't been introduced to the legal system... yet.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2m,
1 reply
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2m,
1 reply
Quite simple... Your asshat reputation precedes you.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2m,
2 replies
2 ups, 2m
Hey, is this that babbling stream of nothings newb from last week who kept saying he's been here for years under various names and whose entire arguments consisted of lame cussing? That one sounded totally unfamiliar, but he sounds just like this tryhard.
[deleted]
2 ups, 2m
Bet the rent on a Trump victory on Nov 3rd.
There, that's productive.
Even for a pinhead like you, assuming you can place a bet somewhere with your paper route money.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2m
Just a bit more than you.
But more importantly, I'd be coming back with easily three times as much as you.
reply
1 up, 2m,
2 replies
That’s not how Impeachment works. Have you read the Constitution? Art. II, Sec. IV. The House has the “sole power of impeachment.” It’s a fundamentally political act.

Art. I — Abuse of Office sets forth a sustainable case.

And Art. II — obstructing Congressional subpoenas is also a “high crime and misdemeanor” if Congress says it is.

By the way, all the Starr Report’s recommendations for impeachment of Clinton were “process crimes“ and part of the reason Clinton was impeached for perjury was that he actually testified.

Trump hasn’t even done that yet. And according to these softball bespoke Senate rules currently being crafted for his benefit, he never will.

Trump and all his aides whom evidence collected thus far suggests were involved in this Ukraine scheme all need to testify or else this trial is a sham.
reply
4 ups, 2m,
1 reply
Your arguments are foolish and ignorant, and precisely what the Founders were worried would happen.

Are you really this ignorant...?
reply
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
reply
1 up, 2m,
1 reply
This meme means that you invent things that an opposing party in an argument didn't actually make, and pretend that they actually make them. Then, instead of attacking what your opponent actually said, you attack this man of straw that you invented, to then claim victory.

It's a classic logical fallacy, practiced for millennia.

You do it at least once a day here.
reply
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
I have to fill in the gaps that your arguments leave totally unclear.

If you’re not talking about Art. II, Sec. IV — which is what I talked about, and then you replied to — then what the hell are you talking about?

My views are in line with those of most constitutional scholars rather than the conservative pundits who have become self-appointed impeachment scholars as of a couple weeks ago and whose views on this are hopelessly biased for Trump’s benefit.
0 ups, 2m
No, you don't need to fill in anyone's "gaps." In the real world, we call that "leaping to conclusions that aren't warranted from the evidence."

So calm down...take some prozac...and start talking to people like a real human being, rather than a pre-programmed Leftist talking point robot.

And I wouldn't give two cents for "most constitutional scholars." Barack Obama TAUGHT Constitutional Law before and during his political career, and he knew NOTHING about it.

It is one of the more breathtaking aspects of our broken educational system that people...like Liz Warren and Obama...can TEACH their erroneous, anti-Founder interpretations of the Constitution, and be referred to as "constitutional scholars."

I guess if they're teaching health class for senior citizens, that *might* be considered constitutional....
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 2m,
1 reply
You must have rolled up to your "law school" in a short bus, you window licking retard.
AGAIN...
Please name the SPECIFIC section of the US Criminal Code that Trump supposedly violated according to the impeachment documents. Name the SPECIFIC crime. Or STFU, you idiot.

Abandon your mental midget opinion about challenging Congressional subpoenas, because every administration does that in court, but chickenshit Schiff knew he would get thrown out of court.
Look up the 5th Amendment. Nobody has to testify anywhere.
Look up a presumption of innocence in this country. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
(And the impeachment managers haven't proven anything. Nada, Zip. Nothing.)
That's the law... not whatever "Congress says it is." God, you are stupid.

AGAIN... for the third and last time.
Please name the SPECIFIC section of the US Criminal Code that Trump supposedly violated according to the impeachment documents. Name the SPECIFIC crime. Or STFU, you idiot.
reply
1 up, 2m,
2 replies
The Fifth Amendment applies in criminal proceedings. Impeachment is not that.

That said: If Trump and his associates all want to take the stand and plead the Fifth in response to every single question asked, that’d be fine by me and would tell any thinking person in this country all they need to know.

It is simply not possible to pre-define and criminalize all of the possible wrongful conduct that a President could engage in ny virtue of the tremendous powers afforded by his office. Not would it arguably be constitutional to do so. That is certainly the position multiple Administrations have taken with respect to the War Powers Act — an attempt by Congress to restrain presidential conduct.

But if the President goes too far, that’s what the remedy of impeachment is for. And the conduct described in Article I meets that standard.

Trump would perjure himself in a heartbeat if he ever actually manned up and took the stand the way Clinton did.
reply
4 ups, 2m,
2 replies
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall
any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."
Nothing in their limits the 5th to criminal proceedings. But nice of you to reverse standards for the people you do not like.
reply
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
You must have just blown past all the explicit references in the 5th Amendment to “crime,” “criminal case,” etc.

But again: if I’m wrong and the 5th Amendment does in fact apply to impeachment, fine, bring all the witnesses in and have them all plead the Fifth in response to every single question if that’s what they want to do.

But anyway, this is very flimsy support for the idea that an impeached President himself can refuse to testify at his own impeachment trial.
3 ups, 2m
Change that goalpost. Unless you wish to go the route that Trump broke no law AND his actions are not criminal, then you have no argument for the 5th applying.
reply
0 ups, 2m,
2 replies
Also: If Trump is refusing to testify because he thinks the Fifth gives him grounds to do so, he should state that. He hasn’t, to my knowledge.

I assumed his basis was executive privilege (different concept) but I’m not sure if he’s explicitly stated that, either.

The American people deserve to hear exactly why the President won’t bother to answer these charges under oath.
3 ups, 2m
It is among the basic rights that are provided to the people. As Trump is not above the law, he is not below it either.
0 ups, 2m
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 2m,
2 replies
All of your response is based on opinion, and an utter disregard for the presumption of innocence and 700 years of legal evolution and precedent, you ignorant, clueless schmuck.
SO AGAIN...
Please name the SPECIFIC section of the US Criminal Code that Trump supposedly violated according to the impeachment documents. Name the SPECIFIC crime. Or STFU, you idiot.
reply
4 ups, 2m
reply
0 ups, 2m,
1 reply
One more time, slowly.

Impeachment is not a criminal trial. The U.S. Code is a total red herring.

The “high crimes and misdemeanors” at issue in this case are defined in:

—Article I
—Article II

I’ll even link it for you this time: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6572310-Text-Articles-of-Impeachment-Against-President

Read that and a bit of neutral, non-propagandized commentary on impeachment and you will find the answers you seek

The end
[deleted]
2 ups, 2m
What part of "high crime" has you confused?
Do you really believe the founders of the USA intended impeachment as a tool to remedy when one political party was offended or had a difference of opinion?
Something one political party can just dust off when they get pissed off?

And you must be joking...NPR is "non-propagandized"...???
Didn't MS-NBC have a link? Why don't you use the cows on The View as a source?
You have no credibility. None.
You are a casualty of the codified mental illness rampant in the schools.
And that is why the GOP will be throwing this hoax impeachment out this week.
They are obligated to address the impeachment articles, no matter how flawed, but they don't have to give it any more time than this week.
It has no merit. Much like everything you posted today and in days past.

If anyone needs to catch up on their reading, it's you. And don't think it hasn't escaped my notice you never addressed your upside down views on the sacrosanct "presumption of innocence". You are pathetic.
reply
0 ups, 2m
Speaking of clueless
reply
1 up, 2m
https://www.scribd.com/document/443783939/OLC-Opinion-Judicial-Enforcement-Authority-01-19-2020
Show More Comments
Flip Settings
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
EXTRA IMAGES ADDED: 2
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Donald Trump
  • Robert Mueller
  • IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
    37 INDICTMENTS, 7 CONVICTIONS, 5 PRISON SENTENCES; OH WHOOPS SORRY WRONG IMAGE; THAT WAS THIS ONE; AND IF THE GOP SENATE REFUSES TO CONDUCT A REAL TRIAL AND PUSHES FOR AN UNFAIR ACQUITTAL; WHAT SAY WE BRING THIS GUY BACK?
    hotkeys: D = random, W = upvote, S = downvote, A = back
    Feedback